Posted on 01/06/2011 6:30:56 AM PST by Miss_Meyet
In the December 15th issue of America's most prestigious medical pubication, The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Eric Friedman and Eli Adashi write, "In passing The Affordable Care Act, the United States took a giant, if partial, step toward joining nations wherein the right to health constitutes an inalienable moral and legal right." Notice how the authors replace the term health care with just the term health.
As a medical doctor, I strongly disagree that health is or should be a human right. First and foremost, as a supporter of individual rights and constitutionally limited government, "the right to health" is far too nebulous and necessarily vests the government with unlimited power.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I hope this is not a duplicate--I searched for title and keywords.
I have to leave now for a meeting, but I will return and reply.
Spot on.
By any definition, an “inalienable right” must cost nothing to anyone.
It is yours by the fact that you are the crown of creation.
Your Liberty does not entail me working for months to pay the taxes for it.
Very good article by Andrew Foy. Thanks for posting and belated WELCOME ABOARD!
Life, liberty and the pursuit and destruction of totalitarians.
Exactly right! bill1952! A "right" to something should not exist when it infringes on the rights of another. However, by making "health care" and, as the author points out, even more frightening "health" a right, this imposes burdensome costs on society as a whole.
I post, therefore I am? (Muffy's new tagline)
:-)
You did it!
Well said!
I laughed yesterday listening to Pelosi's ramblings before actually turning over the gavel to Boehner, well...I think it was Pelosi who was taking about the 50th anniversary of JFK's presidency. Pretend it was she...it's not important... anyway, she said that JFK inspired a generation of "public servants" by his remark, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
Where am I going with this?
Oh, yes...now it certainly seems that it's "What can my country do for me?" (At the expense of my fellow countrymen)
Well, I certainly thought so, and thought the author deserved credit for expressing a refreshing viewpoint not commonly heard in his profession.
Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research Membership Recovery Act Allocates $1.1 Billion for Comparative Effectiveness Research LINK
This is the 15 MEMBER UNELECTED DEATH PANEL IN THE STIMULUS BILL!
Obamacare and Taxes: The Final Tab (ATR.org)
link
Dr. David Janda explains rationing and why
Link
Obamacare Endgame: Doctors Will be Fined or Jailed if they Put Patients First by Dr. Elaina George
LINK
I'm laughing.
I suppose the answer turns on precisely what you are posting. There are limits on free speech, as you doubtless know.
Thank you for the tagline suggestion, Lakeshare.
I thought it was an exceptional piece.
Oh, chuckle—the JAMA writer is named “Friedman” I do hope he is not related to Uncle Milton—he (Milton Friedman) would be spinning in his grave to read that “health” itself is now a right.
Very simply, ‘the right to health' means the government should do everything required to make sure each individual attains the highest level of health. Furthermore, since an individual's health is affected by literally every other aspect of his life, government should do everything in each of these areas to make sure they are affecting the individual's health in the most positive way. In Friedman and Adashi's point of view, the right to health represents a limitless claim on the government's bounty. This brings to mind the age old adage, "a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
I really do miss President Reagan.
And what if some people dont want to take care of their health? Far as I'm concerned, that's their business.
It's a terrific article, but I have to disagree with the description of JAMA as the most presigious medical journal. It isnt.
It's a terrific article, but I have to disagree with the description of JAMA as the most presigious medical journal. It isnt.
;)
I hate to say it, but I think a large part of the loss of prestige stems from having had a female editor at the helm. IMHO, "Jama Mama" took the Journal into more "socially just" areas versus true science. She also made a point of dumping advertisers with whom she had "issues".
Sorry, I have to leave again.
Would it now?
Noted.
But, I think you have me confused with someone else.
I do have just one teeny, tiny, teensy quibble with this otherwise rather good article.
Dr Foy seems to be following the modern fashion of "improving" on Locke. Foy speaks of "negative" rights, rather than the good old, tried and true, "natural" rights when speaking of the rights in the Declaration of Independence. I always thought of those as moral rights. Of course, I could be wrong.
I mean, deep down, it's okay. Really. IMHO, any effort made these days at distinguishing a "right" from a "want" or even a "wish" is to be applauded. Particularly in the arena of health services.
Ok, that concludes my little tirade.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.